jimmy Kimmel this week. The roundtable, former house speaker and "Cross fire "Co-host, newt Gingrich. Donna Brazile, Chris Christie -- bill kristol. And the host of A.M. Tonight on fusion. And thank you for joining us. I want to start with the big supreme court decision on campaign finance. Erasing the overall limits on how much people can give in a campaign cycle. Donna, you think this is a really big deal. Why? First of all, if you think money -- if you think money is speech and corporations are people and the wealthiest 1% are a persecuted minority then you'll love this. I guess you don't hold those views. No, I don't. I think it's a lousy decision. For several reasons, the number -- the aggregate that wealthy individuals can give is now unlimited, pretty much. This allows people who can basically tell donors and I'm sure the speaker can remember these days -- those days back in the past when people said, well, I'm mixed out. Now you don't have to max out. You can continue to give and give and give to as many candidates as you want. You have an overall limit to how much you can give, but the aggregate amount has changed. The actual limits are there. Is this really that big of a deal? You used to say, I only had one billionaire supporting my campaign, Romney are a dozen. Or 40. A few dozen. How big of a deal? It's a very big deal. It means that people can give to scores of campaigns. You're going to see a lot more financing. But it's part of a continuum. It started a long time ago when they said speech included money, which was the original decision. You as a billionaire or millionaire could spend your own money. I mean -- Every network loves the idea that speech is not money. They dominate totally. The fact is the "New York times" editorializes all day every day and doesn't count what it does as contribution. So speech matters. But what's happened is you have gone from that original decision to citizen united that said in effect corporations could give and created super PACS. Now you have said they're unlimited. And just as Clarence Thomas cited, candidates should be allowed to take unlimited amounts of money from anybody, and you would equalize the middle class and the rich. The problem today is, Bloomberg can spend an extraordinary amount of money -- This is a middle class play to allow people to give as much money without any limits? The donors hate this decision. It's a good excuse to say to a candidate, I'm maxing out. I can't help the campaign. It's good for the campaigns to get the money relative to the super PACS. This decision will help in that respect. But I think it's constitutionally correct. The supreme court will be a big issue in 2016. We have all -- 5-4 decision. Think how many, obamacare, same-sex marriage. Now this. And more obamacare decisions coming, incidentally, I think, which could be interesting. So we are focused on foreign policy and obamacare and domestic issues. The supreme court -- the next president will shape the direction of the supreme court. And this is a continuum. Here you have the supreme court coming down and basically giving a very narrow definition of corruption, which is quid pro quo. Whereas awful liberal -- all of the liberal justices are saying, take a broader look. Does money corrupt the actual system? And they say no. And that opens the door to a variety of other cases that we're going to see about limits to individual candidates, about limits to political parties. Once you've opened that door, it becomes harder to close this. Donna, the New York times reported on Friday that Nancy Pelosi's fundraisers are out in force trying to take advantage of the ruling, hitting up donors who have mixed out, say give more. Is there hypocrisy on the democratic side? You are going to jump into this. I've always been for limitations with regard to campaign finance. There are democrats who are going to take advantage of it just like republicans. If you look at the top 100 -- 1,000 donors from 2012, over 650 were republicans. So they're going to probably get more money out of this, but the democrats are going to try to even the game, so to speak. Now two of the most high-profile big donors going big with a multi-million dollar ad campaign hitting vulnerable democrats in the senate. Here's the exclusive first look at a new ad funded by Charles and David Koch. The hypocrisy is shocking. Udal got campaign cash. Health insurance companies got billions of taxpayer dollars and Colorado families are paying the price. Now he says -- I would do it again, yes. I would do it again. If there's any doubt, erases it. The big issue still, the number one issue, dominant issue for the republicans in the campaign is going to be obamacare. I have to ask you, you have to give the president a little credit, 7.1 million signups after the disastrous start. Hit the number and went past. About 800,000 of those people were previously uninsured. 800,000 out of 7 million. The huge bulk previously insured. Big deal, he moved people from insurance plans they liked to forcing them into the exchanges. Give the soviet union credit, 200 million people bought braerd in the grocery stores. The debate is not over. No way. The obamacare debate is real. No way, the obamacare debate is real. But on that ad, which I like, that's a response to the ads attacking the kochs. But it's telling the republicans, don't tie them with the insurance companies. That's the best democratic talking point in the failure of obamacare. Republicans to want go back to pre-obamacare. They need to have an alternative. And the republicans are in the pocket of the insurance companies. Those ads say the Obama administration worked with the insurance companies to write this bill. Imagine an alternative reality where he did not pull the rabbit out of hat and crossed the 7 million threshold. We would be talking about it being a failure. He's going to spike the ball. He has to. It's more interesting you have congressional democrats not doing the same, wanting to see how many of these people were not previously insured, wanting to see how many pay their premiums. Especially because we focused on the number, what matters is what the risk pool looks like. How many young people? How many young people. Haven't told us yet. We don't know the Numbers. But from the data we do know, it's close to 30%, which is sort of on par with romneycare with the young, healthy people you need to balance out those who need care. Bring the rates down for 2015. Move now, rough turn to Afghanistan. Historic day. Voters making a critical decision this weekend. Who will replace Hamid karzai. Mohammad Lila is tracking it from kabul. Reporter: A historic moment in Afghanistan. There were fears of violence after two female western journalists were attacked just the day before the election. But in the end, it was a huge defeat for the Taliban, because quite simply, despite those threats, they couldn't stop this ex from going forward. Key in all of this, the united States. Unlike president Hamid karzai, all three leading candidate the say they want American troops in the country. We spoke with the front runner. Would American troops be welcome in Afghanistan? They would. The overwhelming number of them are going to be helping. Equipping Afghans. Reporter: The vote counting is underway, a process that could take weeks. It could be some time before we find out who the next Afghan president is. Jon. Thanks. And now the other big foreign policy story this week, secretary of state John Kerry's sharp dial back on the mideast peace process. Check him out with Martha Raddatz three months ago versus what he's saying now. Hopefully the leaders will seize this moment and at least move the balls forward somewhat. There are limits to the amount of time and effort that the United States can spend if the parties themselves are unwilling to take constructive steps in order to be able to move forward. It sounds like he's basically declaring defeat. This is one of the goofiest things historians will record. You have the leader of the Palestinian organization saying in arabic we're never going to recognize a jewish state. Period. Now you couldn't have it clearer. There is no peace process -- there has not been a peace process ever. The core movement is committed to the destruction of Israel. Hamas is committed to the destruction of Israel. Yet western diplomats have this passion, this endless need, this masochi masochism, and it's bipartisan. Please let me come over -- I recall an effort under bush -- A bipartisan state department-led fanaticism. Allowing people to beat on you, so you can come back and say -- if this was a comedy show, Kerry would win an award for a comedic performance. Put those things back to back. This is the big moment. We're here in history. Three months later, we have limited patience. Well, the middle east has unlimited patience, and that means people with limited patience lose. Donna, the white house pullback on this? We looked at this -- John Kerry has been on the road 169 days as secretary of state. Right. 54 in the middle east. I think the white house, like previous white house, their administrations, they're trying to achieve a goal that is, you know -- as the speaker just said, it's very difficult. Very tough. If you have one side that will not give up its demands. Although Israel has given up land, they have released prisoners. Mr. Abbas, go to the international organizations, get recognized. The only way to have a two-state solution is if the Palestinians come to the table and deal with the Israelis. And if they won't do that, it's tough to get a two-state solution. But I applaud the administration and I applaud secretary Kerry for trying. This is the end of the peace process. It's like a zombie. Keeps coming back. American administrations like the idea, they are obsessed with the notion that if the australisraelis and the palestines will work out their problems on a few square miles on the west bank where

This transcript has been automatically generated and may not be 100% accurate.